Teacher effectiveness can be judged by what students have understood and are able to do with their understanding when they leave the classroom. Future teachers gain their knowledge of content in colleges and universities. Most also begin there the acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge, both through course work and by observation of their teachers (virtually the only source of such knowledge for future college teachers). Elementary and secondary teachers later hone, reinforce, and deepen their pedagogical content knowledge by classroom experience. If the changes in the teaching of science, mathematics, and technology advocated by the AAAS, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the National Science Foundation are to be realized, colleges and universities must rise to the challenge of preparing teachers to teach differently and providing continuing professional development.

The need to restructure programs for teacher preparation was the reason the AAAS, with support from the National Science Foundation, in March 1996 convened a forum, Seizing Opportunities: Collaborating for Excellence in Teacher Preparation. The underlying assumption for restructuring is that no isolated department, school, or institution can provide the breadth of preparation science and mathematics teachers need; a variety of players must collaborate. These include departments and schools in such fields as natural and social sciences, mathematics, and engineering, departments and schools of education, school systems, and community organizations including business and industry, science and technology centers, and parent groups that encourage and support innovative and effective teaching. Strong collaborations potentially have the staying power necessary to nurture and sustain the long-term systemic changes envisioned by science education reformers.

College and university faculty should have been contributors to a forum like this one. Since there are so many faculty who would be involved, even from a small selection of universities, it seemed reasonable to begin the conversation with deans of science and of education, each of whom represents a large number of the relevant faculty. Deans generally understand and reflect the concerns of faculty with regard to new programs and are also attuned to institutional priorities and resources that provide opportunities for and will affect a restructured teacher preparation program. Long-term university collaborations with schools and the community, moreover, necessarily involve administration as well as faculty. Therefore, for both pragmatic and programmatic reasons, the participants in this forum on teacher preparation were teams of deans of science and of education from each of the 51 universities represented.

Although no formal set of recommendations for teacher preparation programs was made by the forum participants, a number of common ideas emerged from the small and large group discussions. Among those of most interest to Journal readers are the following:

·Design and implement strategies that take into account fundamental values, rewards, and incentives, along with a rebalancing among the components of the university mission: to teach, to inquire, and to serve.

·Place the emphasis on learning rather than teaching. This shift is essential to the reform of teaching and the enhanced effectiveness of teaching. It includes the college teacher's willingness to serve as a model for the prospective school teacher.

·Be sensitive to context. Designing programs for the preparation of science and mathematics teachers is important in itself, but it is embedded in movements for reform in many parts of the educational system.

·There are significant curriculum issues associated with the reform of undergraduate education and the teacher preparation programs, but curriculum issues should not be confused with issues of teaching and learning.

·Define and develop standards for the scholarship of teaching. Implementation of these standards is essential for the rebalancing of the mission that the movement for higher education reform is endeavoring to bring about.

·Build collaborations based on strengths and mutual benefits. Collaborations within the university (especially between the college of education and the college of science), among the university, schools, and community, and across institutions is necessary, but involves sensitivities that must be understood and accounted for.

We anticipate that follow-up from the forum will involve faculty, administrators, and many others in activities designed to prepare excellent science and mathematics teachers for the nation's schools. The AAAS is actively seeking ways to stimulate, facilitate, and reinforce these activities. As a first step, single copies of the forum report, Seizing Opportunities: Collaborating for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, are available free of charge through the email address below. Multiple copies are available at $50/10 copies. After you have read this publication, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations for further action in this area of undergraduate educational reform.

Literature Cited

1. What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future; Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996. Available for $18 from the Commission at PO Box 5239, Woodbridge, VA 22194-5239.